Re: 'Source and Observer'

From: Ballisticus (B_at_..(Ballisticus))
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 05:06:16 GMT

On 7 Jul 2004 16:41:57 -0700, pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote:

>Sorry about threadlet.
>
>
>"Ballisticus" <B@..> wrote in message news:93toe0lan99m4qgu2pmms4s3f2jiui2eu4@4ax.com...
>> On 7 Jul 2004 04:35:18 -0700, pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote:
>>
>> >"Ballisticus" <B@..> wrote in message news:e0bme09c2vqprb02g1kjbhnpvg1pakie47@4ax.com...
>
>> >> If an absolute aether existed, genuine physical contractions COULD occur. It is
>> >> then possible to produce a mathematical theory that makes measured OWLS
>> >> constant for all moving obserbers.
>> >> Because experimentally measured TWLS appeared to be constant, Lorentz thought
>> >> he was on to something good.
>> >> Unfortunately he didn't appreciate that TWLS would have to be measured to
>> >> better than 1 part in about 10^10 before it could be deemed constant.
>> >> The latest measurements of TWLS are approaching that limit.
>> >>
>
>> >Thirdly, regardless of an "absolute aether", it is quite easy to
>> >select- -establish a single stationary FOR:
>> >http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
>>
>> I don't understand that.
>
>I am not entirely clear what you are referring to, so let's see: I am
>saying that it is quite easy to establish a single stationary frame of
>reference, and I present one, which essentially is the following:
>"Take, for example, the earth in its orbit around the sun. A line
>through the centre of the earth and the centre of the sun can be, say,
>the y-axis. A line through the centre of the earth and perpendicular
>to the y-axis can be the x-axis. Based on these and the direction of
>the earth in relation to the sun apply the z-axis. Let the time t-axis
>be, say, 00.00 am Jan 1st 2004".
>
>If you wish me to address any aspect of the above or of the complete
>system, please specify and I will be delighted to discuss it - I've
>been calling for comments on it.

I think you are simply trying to plot 4D graphs. That is OK.

Nothing moves in a 4D graph.

>
>
>Also, I'm still stuck for the meaning of OWLS and TWLS?

One-Way light speed and Two-Way (or round-trip) light speed.

Until you understand the significance of the difference, you cannot appreciate
the relativity problem or how Einstein's clock synch definition allowed him to
make an 'aether' redundant.

>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Re your book: "Motion involves distance and time, two basic quantities
>> >that should be familiar to everyone. These, along with mass are
>> >scientifically referred to as dimensions. Physics cannot explain the
>> >existence of dimensions in the overall scheme of things and doesn't
>> >attempt to.": According to the philosophy system "Effectuationism",
>> >value am- -is (a) tension of relationship of 'forces'. So, that
>> >tension, when sufficiently somewhat recurring to effect perception-
>> >-conceptualisation and in relationship with yet other (relationships
>> >of) forces, would be the expression of "mass" and "position-
>> >-location". Interaction - events- of such concepts- -relationships
>> >would be Being- -Time. It is all best thought of as somewhat first
>> >person - but inferentially multi-faceted.

See why relativity is wrong:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Japanese Researchers Find Planet X-ish Thing Sort Of
    ... produced a new model which predicts an object 30-70% the mass of Earth ... at about 100 AU out from the Sun. ... IAU will alter the definition of a planet to avoid having to call this ... I have to give you credit for saying something even more outrageously definitive than the headlines of the two media articles you referenced, which is saying something given the usual fodder they crap out. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • (OT:) 2 out of 3 geologists agree...
    ... agreed with what I have been saying; that the current climtae change is a ... normal cycle of the earth, and will end in an ice age. ... moving further away from the sun. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: When did scientists come to expect weightlessness?
    ... But I'm saying that the Earth and the Moon ... are more-or-less in freefall around the Sun, ... relative movement is controlled by the relationship between them but ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Why I so strongly disagree with Arny Krueger...
    ... I'm not saying that good science cannot be ... "It does not make sense to say that the earth goes around the sun, ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Why be a believer?
    ... > SECOND the Universe is incomprehensible in size and by comparison our World ... > Sun, Stars and Planets revolved around the Earth. ... > Acoran [Supreme] ...
    (alt.religion.christian)